ALTHOUGH there are scores of products in Pakistan qualifying for the status of a geographical indication, yet not a single GI has been registered under the prevailing legal mode. Instead, a trade mark status, not recognised abroad, has been granted to a commodity.

Major reasons for this situation are cumbersome legal procedures, delays in fixing hearings, conflict of interest among the stakeholders whose number keeps rising and, above all, flawed definitions of territory from where the product has originated. As a result, the litigations remain unresolved for years.

In India, Darjeeling tea is the lone instance where the product achieved GI status without much hassle. In Pakistan, the trade mark status of basmati rice was granted to Basmati Growers Association in 2008 but was challenged in a court and remains undecided.

Other products that can qualify for the GI status include Apricot, Peshawari Chappal, Multani Halva, Hala ki Ajrak, Sargodha's Kinoo, Kasuri Methi, Sindhri Mango, Dir ke Chakoo (knives), wild mushrooms of Swat and Neeli Ravi Buffalo etc.

The basmati rice, one of the most sought-after commodity across the world happens to be a contentious issue within both Pakistan and India and also between them for it commands a lucrative market. It has been grown for centuries on a large tract in Punjab on both sides of the border and some adjoining areas. Now countries such as Bangladesh and the Philippines are also seeking GI status for the basmati produced in their lands.

The latest development in the ongoing basmati warfare is the Indian GI registry’s decision on December 31, 2013 allowing Madhya Pradesh to be included among the basmati-producing states in India as mentioned in the original application now being processed. This caused anger among the parties concerned in both the countries.

The decision has been challenged by the state-owned Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA) which had filed the original application five years ago. In 2008 it was authorised by the Indian Parliament to act as owner for the registration of basmati rice till the registry accords GI status to it.

The decision has also been opposed by Pakistan’s Basmati Growers Association (BGA) but the Indian registry in Chinnai rejected its objections. Now BGA is filing an appeal against the order of the Assistant Registrar with the Intellectual Property Appeal Board (IPAB).

The Indian move, BGA president Hamid Malhi says, will deprive Pakistan of its rightful share in the international basmati market. Originally, the APEDA had sought GI status for Punjab, Haryana, Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and parts of Uttar Pradesh and occupied Jammu & Kashmir.

But India, Malhi says, has already expanded the basmati-producing areas beyond the original districts and the BGA is already contesting this aspect in the Chennai registry.

In the past, the absence of legal protection for basmati, the aromatic long-grain rice, has proved dangerous. In 1997, for instance, US company RiceTec was able to acquire a patent on basmati rice grains and lines. India and Pakistan got together to fight it out. RiceTec had to ultimately surrender most of its claims and was granted patents for rice strains that were not of the sub-continental varieties.

India and Pakistan, in 2008, again got together to seek a joint GI for basmati globally. But the talks came to a halt after relations between them worsened in the wake of terrorist attacks on Mumbai on November 26, 2008. Reacting sharply, Pakistan granted a trademark for basmati to the Basmati Growers Association (BGA), investing it with exclusive ownership of the commodity. But this has not been accepted by the European Union and some other countries.

India’s export promotion agency, APEDA, is one of the parties contesting grant of trade mark (GI) of basmati to BGA. The case is still before the Sind High Court. Another contestant is Rice Exporters Association of Pakistan (REAP) whose former chairman Haji Abdul Mjeed is seeking inclusion of Sindh in the basmati-producing areas. He claims that D-98 (Sugdasi) is the Sindhi basmati which has been recognised by Pakistan Standards Institute and Sri Lanka has been importing it since 2005. APEDA opposes it for it is similar to what Madhya Pradesh is doing in India.

The narrative that the trade mark enjoys the same status as geographical indication label was promoted by the Intellectual Property Organisation (IPO-Pakistan) soon after its formation. It took the decision after it felt disgusted to find that a draft law on geographical indication has been lying with the government since 2000 and has been vetted many times by the relevant authorities but no action was taken.

IPO-Pakistan says that the world has two major models of GI law, namely, US-Canadian composite model and European stand-alone model.

Pakistan adopted the composite model under which GI legislation has been incorporated in the Trade Marks Ordinance 2001and the Trade Marks Registry is responsible for handling registration of GIs. The GI related workload, it said, is too small to justify a separate GI registry under the stand-alone model. But it is high time that the GI-awarding mechanism is rectified and updated to earn approval of the EU for the basmati.